- When your display is at 1024x768, there is not enough space across the screen for all the buttons when you have a HQ up with a leader, because the 'leader pool' button is up there and with that, not enough room. A couple of the buttons half overlay each other and they are still usable but an annoyance. The suggestion, get rid of the 'surrender' button. I never use it. If I am losing it is time for the big red X. Not gonna add humiliation to injury by hitting the surrender button.

- A bug. When using the leaders option, there are times when you cannot buy a HQ without a leader even if you have 5 PP left. The option might go out when you can no longer purchase a HQ *with* a leader I dunno but, it still goes away before it should.

- I looked in the forums and could not find anything on this... what happens if you put more staff in a HQ than the leader is supposed to be able to handle? I oftentimes start HQs out with 80 staff but, most of the leaders cannot handle 80 staff but I was giving the HQs 80 staff anyways and, didn't know if it was causing a problem or not.

- I start HQs out with 40 or 80 staff and, they then usually get up to at least 120 and sometimes as much at 400 or so. But, can't see anyways this can happen with the leader option. The best I had was 73 or so and when he got promoted he was up to 78 but that is still a lot less than I normally use. Guess the strategy here is for smaller 'corps' each with a leader. I guess there isn't any strategy in having an intermediate HQ in the mix, leaders or not. Maybe eventually.

- Oh, another bug. When you first get a leader in a HQ he is showing like 430 staff or so but then come the next turn, just 43. So, there seems to be a 10x multiplier on these when first purchased in a HQ.

- Oh, one bug not related to leaders... when playing random game with 1 hex start, about half time when you take an unoccupied city that was neutral, when you bring the production up it is showing production that you have to delete before you can give it the production you need. If foreign nationals then the initial production is bogus because you cannot produce rifle, etc, with these cities. About half the time have to delete the production that is there while the other half, no production and no problem. Minor thing but a bit of a pain after a while.

- This all with v 213b.

- Yeah, was a bit dissapointed that there were no naval and air leaders like there were in PT but, can't have everything I guess.

Re: what happens if you put more staff in a HQ than the leader is supposed to be able to handle? I oftentimes start HQs out with 80 staff but, most of the leaders cannot handle 80 staff but I was giving the HQs 80 staff anyways and, didn't know if it was causing a problem or not.

Answer: the number isn't a limit on how many staff an officer can handle, it is a limit on how many staff his bonuses can be applied to.

Re: you cannot use the resource mod with the the new leaders enhancement.

Answer: The latest version of Lancer's Resource Mod is based on the v2.13 anewdawn.at2 file so it does have officers. I expect that Lancer will update his resource mod to support v2.14 at some point.

Re: just remove the leaders.txt file from the mods folder.

Answer: Lancer mistakenly included that file in his first build of his new resource mod. He removed it the following day I believe and the current install file does not include it.

Re: what happens if you put more staff in a HQ than the leader is supposed to be able to handle? I oftentimes start HQs out with 80 staff but, most of the leaders cannot handle 80 staff but I was giving the HQs 80 staff anyways and, didn't know if it was causing a problem or not.

Answer: the number isn't a limit on how many staff an officer can handle, it is a limit on how many staff this bonuses can be applied to.

Exactly. Haven't played the latest patch yet as Vic is pouring them out faster than I can finish a current game lol, but anyways... I see the Officers as an added bonus, and certainly not as a limit to the amount of Staff an HQ can have. I tried that, but the Staffnumber an Officer can handle is way too low for a decent sized Army, in the 60's 70's or so, way too low. So now I create my usual HQ's, sometimes up to 250 or more Staff and see that Officer as a bonus. It was my impression that Vic was working on this issue in his latest patch 2.14.

"Answer: The latest version of Lancer's Resource Mod is based on the v2.13 anewdawn.at2 file so it does have officers. I expect that Lancer will update his resource mod to support v2.14 at some point."

I looked into this more closely and found you have to use the new at2 file, ERM_OFFICERS, to get the resource mod with the new officers enhancement and... he now integrates everything into one mod and I had only been using the restriction that resources must be attached to the rail net and not the transport pools... so now if you want to use the one you must use the others and, to me that isn't worth it.

"Answer: the number isn't a limit on how many staff an officer can handle, it is a limit on how many staff his bonuses can be applied to. " I guess this means if the officer has 40 as a max staff value, with a bonus of 30%.... then if you have 80 staff in his HQ... then the troops under his command... get a 15% bonus.

"Answer: the number isn't a limit on how many staff an officer can handle, it is a limit on how many staff his bonuses can be applied to. " I guess this means if the officer has 40 as a max staff value, with a bonus of 30%.... then if you have 80 staff in his HQ... then the troops under his command... get a 15% bonus.

No?

Or is it they do not get ANY bonus if the staff is over his maximum?

Thanks.

Excellent question. Waiting for the answer.

Bye!

For all intents and purposes yes...

The actual calculation is however a little bit different. If not all these 80 staff are actually needed to lead the troops the officer might have a higher modifier effect.

best, Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

They are in AI games, along with Red boxes and Green ones. The green ones seem to be the hit you will take because of airbase overcrowding and may have nothing to do with leaders. I have seen red and blue together (both colors infecting the same units) in a game with leaders. If it is leaders doing it, it has to be the AI leaders, because it isn't my group of stumblebums. Sometimes, my guys sober up and get a "charge" card, and I think that puts a blue box with a + modifier on my effected units. The - modifiers must be the other guys, but I want to know who is putting a curse on me. what is the nature of this curse, where is the guy who is doing it, and what do I do about it. I was going to start this exact thread, but I couldn't figure out how to get a graphic to stick in the post. Maybe Vic will look in and give us a list of colors, meanings, and solutions to this wave of negative graphics.

and what happens when both your leader and his leader are casting spells on the same unit? do you get two blue boxes? a cumulative box? how do you know how many leaders are effecting a given modification if it is cumulative? Is the modification you see cumulative with anything else like terrain?

Acutually, i was thinking that the new cards are kinda like spells. I was at one point thinking of making a "fireball" or "lightning strike" card for a leader... But really, they are not spells, and i am not sure what you mean by negative graphics either...

Minus 23%? Well for me personally I see the cards as the "personal touch" of a commander. Each commander has a different "style", and bonusses, so you have Artillery Officers, and Tank Officers and so on. Adds a lot of gameflavour if you ask me. I even try to put the proper general in the right place, so a Tank ace gets the most armour, an Artillery genius gets the most tubes and so on. The Officers with "administrative" cards get the higher HQ's and they are not on the frontlines, usually somewhere at a distribution hub. But each has his own way of playing this gem.

I think it´s a defensive bonus played by a leader, owned by the AI....

Ernie, is it the blue background that makes you think it is a defensive bonus? So a red background in the upper left corner of the unit graphic would be offensive? In post #9, I notice that the unit with 90% readyness is getting a lower percentage of bouns than the others. Does this suggest to you that the percentage displayed in cumulative,and includes the effect of readyness? Do you think it would also include things like HQ power and staffing level effect in the units parent HQ? I have seen blue, red and green boxes. Have you seen any boxes of colors other than this? Thanks in advance if you can answer any of these questions.

Thanks, Ernie. I am going to attempt to embed a grapic in this post. If it works, I will edit the post to explain the graphic, if it does not, this is just going to be a messy post, that I dont know how to delete, and I apoligise to everybody. Is there a readme somewhere that I ought to look at?

great, seems to have worked! This is a composite graphic, not a screenshot. The 4 jap units belong to Kagawa and are in different hexes. As you can see Kagawa is not very expirenced, and has virtually no staff. I am guessing that he is giving both offensive and defensive bonuses to his rifle and artillery subformations. Note that we are seeing what appears to be an offensive bonus on an enemy unit during my turn. Also note that the amount of bonus differs between the two rifle units. The Rifle II is actually closer to Kagawa than the rifle I, so it isn't that. The two artillery units are colocated, with identical bonuses and differing readyness states, so the bonus is not some sort of composite that includes readyness. All the units are 3 or fewer hexes away from the commander. The bomber is mine. I included it to show the green box in the bottom left. This number changes as I change the number of aircraft at the airfield, so it must be the overcrowding penalty the aircraft will suffer, and have nothing to do with leaders. I made the guess that the red and blue boxes are related to enemy leaders playing handcards (and will be temporary in nature) but am I right? Some of these bonuses are pretty big, and they are going to effect how you go about dealing with the enemy, so you kind of ned to know about them. If any of you have any othyer guesses, or light to shead on the subject, I would love to hear about it. I have this position saved if anybody needs more infirmation.

this is an addendum to post 20. I just noticed this. This is another Kagawa unit with one sf getting a bonus, and one getting nothing. It is from the same point in the game. for some reason the graphic didn't display, but take a look at the attachment.

I too was wondering about what these new numbers were that appeared with no explanation. That they are attack/defence bonuses makes the most sense, but as has been outlined above there is a lot that has been left unexplained and (as far as I can tell) undocumented.

Yeah the Divebomber malus -26% is the overstacking penalty, but this was in the game already. The other percentage boxes are not necessarilly played cards but could be traits from their commanding officer that get implemented each turn. Remember some officers do get perks/traits when they level up, as far as I know these perks are random. So you may have an Artillery trait for an Officer that has no Tubes, or a Tank perk (like extra movement or attack bonus) for an Officer that has no tanks... so keep an eye on which perks/traits these Officers get and place them in a proper HQ. These perks are written down in the Officers description.

Personally in large games I don't like to play with officers, because I already have enough micromanagement and I don't wont more. IMO officers add more routine work (plus maybe some random factors) than creative planning.

I disagree regarding micromanagement. In two MP games, I think I've played one card and switched one officer. I am probably underutilizing my officers, but even so there is not a whole lot of management necessary.